<---->
MENU

Sections

More

June 30, 2022

The Talbot Spy

The nonprofit e-newspaper for the Talbot County Community

Point of View Angela Top Story

The Muse’s Secret

by Leave a Comment

As many of my readers know, my dog, Gus, is my muse.

One of the things that never ceases to amaze me is how Gus is over-the-moon excited to begin each day. He waits for any movement (often around 4 a.m.) and starts to get excited. If I am not ready, he tries to wait.

He tries.

But it is hard for him, because, he knows, he just knows, that today is going to be the most awesome day, ever.

Once I awaken, he can no longer contain his excitement, twirling rapidly, running around, often in circles, going up and down the stairs (even with his heart condition); just so excited that today has finally arrived.

For Gus, life is joy.

And that joy is meant to be shared. On our walks, Gus encounters each stranger with the assumption that the stranger wants to pet him. He hovers for a few minutes, giving them every chance to take advantage of his affectionate nature. Sometimes they do and sometimes they don’t, but he waits patiently in front of them, until they decide.

Because Gus sees humanity in every human.

Including the homeless. It doesn’t matter how dirty, angry, unkempt, or hirsute they are. Some homeless use their appearance and expressions to keep us away.

But all Gus sees is a person who might need some affection. And many actually do. A pat on the head to Gus almost always elicits a smile. Gus stays until they are done and then walks back. The stranger, a stranger no more, smiles. His hidden humanity exposed.

One of the most profound demonstrations of Gus’s capability was at the dog park in Key West. A homeless man chose to spend every day at the dog park, sitting on a bench. He sported a long dirty beard to match his unkempt appearance. He scowled as we entered the park and kept his head down, muttering.

Gus would have none of that. He went over the bench and waited patiently by the man’s side. It took less than a week before the man reached down to pet the 12-pound fluffy white dog. Gus snuggled with him until the man was done and trotted back to me. Every day, Gus came over and as the days progressed their time together grew longer. The man would call Gus as soon as he saw him. It took only a couple of weeks before the man was talking to everyone. Other dogs started to come over and people began to share a smile or a commence a light conversation. Within a couple of months, he was clean shaven, washed, and every morning he waited for that little soft fluffy white dog to come over and gaze at him with his soft doe-eyes. When I returned to Key West the next year, the man was gone; I hope he found a home.

It happened again recently. A man who walked with this head down was no match for Gus. After Gus weaved his magic, we now smile and greet each other.

Last week I was in the supermarket when I noticed an elderly woman having difficulty with her groceries. I came to her aid. It took no longer than a couple of minutes to help her; and afterwards, I felt a euphoria. It is called the Helper’s high. And it is an amazing feeling.

I may have stumbled upon one of Gus’s secrets.

Angela Rieck, a Caroline County native, received her PhD in Mathematical Psychology from the University of Maryland and worked as a scientist at Bell Labs, and other high-tech companies in New Jersey before retiring as a corporate executive. Angela and her dogs divide their time between St Michaels and Key West Florida. Her daughter lives and works in New York City.

The Supreme Court and  the “Right to Live” by J.E. Dean

by 10 Comments

Last week the Court, as expected, overturned Roe v. Wade. Reactions are, as expected, mixed. The “pro-life” and “pro-choice” arguments of the last 50 years resurface as women, states, churches, and others scramble to pronounce their points of view. The decision is likely to play a significant role in the 2022 and 2024 elections. 

Much has been written about Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the decision overturning Roe. Technically, the decision does not ban abortion. Instead, it rescinds the right to an abortion and sends the regulation of abortion to the states. Because at least 22 states already have banned or severely restricted abortions, the decision effectively bans abortions for millions of women. Thousands of women will be forced to birth babies they had determined they did not want or were unable to care for.

While many have focused on the legal arguments of Dobbs, I reflect more on the logical inconsistencies reflected in a court that has effectively banned abortion but still allows the death penalty. Similarly, the decision will result in thousands of babies being born that may lead lives of misery not just because their mothers were unprepared to raise them (or didn’t want to), but because of poverty. 

The Declaration of Independence references the “unalienable rights” of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Many babies born because of Dobbs may not have much of a life, may have extremely limited liberty, and may be denied the pursuit of happiness. Of course, many such babies may lead happy, healthy, productive lives despite being “unwanted children.”

Some babies born as a result of Dobbs may eventually commit capital crimes and be put to death by the government. Ironically, some of the younger justices on the Court, including the Trump Trio of Gorsuch (54 years old), Kavanaugh (57 years old), and Barrett, (50 years old), may still be on the Court when appeals of death sentences of some of the babies (now adults) will reach the Supreme Court. Ironically, the same justices who effectively forced their mothers to unwillingly give them birth will vote to let them be executed. 

Another deeply troubling aspect of the decision is the matter of effectively forcing the birth of human beings and then not caring for them. If you adopt a dog and then abuse it by not feeding it, giving it proper shelter, or otherwise treating it in a humane manner, you can be prosecuted. The concept is that when you adopt a dog, you accept a slate of responsibilities. In the case of an unwanted child, a child born because a woman was unable to get an abortion after concluding she did not want or was unable to care for the child, the state (the government) is responsible for the child being born. Shouldn’t the state be responsible for ensuring the child receives proper healthcare, an education, and the right to “pursue happiness?”

I am angry at Republicans and religious zealots who champion the “right to life” but oppose universal healthcare, spending on education, job, and income security, and other “basic human rights.” Those people championing the “sanctity of life,” are hypocrites, in my view, when they force babies to be born without also championing the “right to live.” 

Child poverty in the U.S. is a disgrace. Eighteen percent of all children live in poverty—thirteen million children. The Supreme Court’s decision, coupled with the hypocrisy of the Court and others in not somehow ensuring that the babies forced to be born are not doomed to join the thirteen million, is effectively denying the “right to live” for many of these babies. 

A final reflection on the decision is that it suggests the Supreme Court and other aspects of the Constitution may be broken or obsolete. The Court returned the decision on whether to permit abortions to the States based on a controversial reading of the Constitution and its amendments. That result is contrary to the wishes of 65 percent of the population.  Is it too much to suggest Dobbs is evidence of Constitutional dysfunction?

The disconnect between the current Supreme Court and the wishes of much of the country suggests that it may be time to rethink the role of the Supreme Court and other aspects of the Constitution. Should Justices be subject to term limits? Should the process of amending the Constitution be made simpler to facilitate the adoption of amendments to establish rights such as same-sex and interracial marriage, or the right to contraception and abortion? These are tough questions, but they are becoming increasingly “ripe for consideration.”

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, birds, and other subjects.

 

Out and About (Sort of): Single-Issue Consequences by Howard Freedlander

by 4 Comments

As much as I admire Dan Watson and the increasingly large group of Talbot County residents who want to thwart the pro-development thrust of the current county council by electing individuals who want to preserve a pristine part of Maryland, I question the focus on one issue, to the exclusion of other important matters facing the county.

Please excuse my 54-word lead sentence.

More concisely, the candidates endorsed by the Talbot Integrity Project (TIP) do have other priorities that need to be evaluated along with their views of land use. I counsel caution; Single-issue criteria tend to distort a more holistic perspective.

I do understand that our country is replete with interest groups advocating a particular policy stance and supporting candidates sympathetic to their perspective. These groups, however, seem less rigid in demanding absolute fealty and more aware of political opinions that might diminish the favored candidate’s credibility and effectiveness. In other words, fellow acolytes may carry viewpoints injurious to an interest group’s objective. The message then becomes muddled; voters are distracted, if not disenchanted.

TIP undertook a process unknown previously in the county, excepting the anti-tax campaign many years ago that successfully enacted the tax cap on the property tax. The result, while applauded by many in Talbot County, has impeded the delivery of necessary public services. I digress.

Do I agree that the current county council, excluding Pete Lesher, is oblivious to the comprehensive plan? Do I agree that the decision to proceed with Lakeside in Trappe is foolhardy and hurtful to the Choptank River and a sense of proportion in Talbot County.

Please record two unequivocal yeses for me.

But I am concerned that some of these candidates, and one in particular, might also advocate for changes in public school curriculums,or other divisive social positions that would bury the county in a constant whirl of controversy. County council members should focus on the budget, not on what’s taught, what’s not.

I am aware that I am deliberately avoiding calling out that particular Republican candidate, already the subject of criticism in readers’ comments.

Why my reluctance to mention this person’s name? I believe he is entitled to his opinions. They are diametrically opposed to mine. I prefer to forsake personal attacks. He and I have disagreed agreeably in the past. He is highly intelligent. He articulates his positions clearly and convincingly (to some).

Admittedly, I do not feel equally restrained in my criticism of current county council members. After all, they are public figures. Their actions warrant review and criticism, if necessary.

Voters must view the total picture of a candidate and his/her views on a slew of policy issues. To do otherwise is irresponsible.

Those elected based upon one overriding issue often are rigid and doctrinaire. They consider compromise anathema. They impede the political process. Teamwork is a foreign concept. This is true on both sides of the aisle. And collaboration is increasingly rare in our currently divisive public arena.

The public spotlight on the Talbot County Council has never been so intense. That’s beneficial. Democracy is working. Increasingly more people are engaged. The community is stronger. County members are feeling the discomfort imposed by public accountability.

TIP, organized by Watson, a citizen extraordinaire, exemplifies democracy at its best. Talbot County citizens are participating in the election process in a transparent manner. They are not accepting the status quo. They are seeking change in a respectable and responsible way.

Beware, however, of single-issue selection criteria. Understand that issues, such as the Lakeside development, do require singular focus and opposition. Also, as we all know, national battleground policies like abortion and gun control justifiably call for laser-like, if not fierce discussion, in Washington, DC and state capitals.

Columnist Howard Freedlander retired in 2011 as Deputy State Treasurer of the State of Maryland. Previously, he was the executive officer of the Maryland National Guard. He also served as community editor for Chesapeake Publishing, lastly at the Queen Anne’s Record-Observer. In retirement, Howard serves on the boards of several non-profits on the Eastern Shore, Annapolis and Philadelphia.

The Evening of America by Jamie Kirkpatrick

by 3 Comments

Once—not all that long ago—we were a great nation: confident, aspirational, perhaps even blessed. A shining city, set upon a hill. But now it seems to me the sun is setting on America. We’re torn and tired, sad and angry, divided, lost, maybe even defeated. Is our day done or is there still a little daylight remaining? We’ll know soon enough.

We did this to ourselves. Six years ago, we elected a flawed man of questionable character who remade the Supreme Court with ideologues of his ilk, three newly minted justices who lack the experience, temperament, and intellectual gravitas to make thoughtful, centrist judicial decisions. In so doing, Mr. Trump and his GOP minions made the Supreme Court, at least in Constitutional theory, the only non-partisan branch of our government, into a vengeful political weapon. Equal justice under law? Not anymore. The decisions of this court only seek to further an extreme political agenda that runs against the grain of a majority of Americans who believe that guns should be regulated, that a woman has the right to choose, and that love is love. 

There is no true north anymore; our collective moral compass spins wildly. We are polarized, paralyzed. We separate into tribes and reorganize in the wings, farther and farther from any common ground. Just over a hundred years ago, William Butler Yeats predicted all this in his poem “The Second Coming,” written coincidentally in the aftermath of another global pandemic:

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

When I was younger, I was a patently cheerful optimist. But now that I’m older, I see things differently. It took several centuries for the Roman Empire to decline and eventually fall, leaving the Western World in darkness. Barbarian threats from without, political instability and corruption from within, a failing economy, and the rise of other empires slowly eroded the power and sway of Rome, eventually causing it to collapse. More recently and much closer to home, there was a time when the sun never set on the British Empire, but within only a century or two, that empire also shrunk and disappeared, writing one more painful chapter in history’s long textbook.

These days, events move more swiftly; the slope is much steeper. The evening of America—if that is indeed what this moment is—might only last a few short years. I would like to think there’s still time to right our ship, but it sure feels like the tide is running fast and the wind is blowing hard. I’m worried.

But over on the horizon, there is still that small glimmer of light. Maybe there’s still time to get this right. We have to ask ourselves if we have the will, the resolve, and the patience to maintain our place in this world. We like to think of ourselves as a great experiment in the power of democracy, an ideal for others to emulate, but I’m sorry to say we’re looking less and less like that shining city set upon a hill. Yeats was right: things are falling apart.

I sound like Eeyore: “things could be worse, but I’m not sure how.” I’ll do my best to rekindle my faith in America. Will you do the same? Maybe it isn’t the evening of America, only the darkness before the dawn.

I’ll be right back.

Jamie Kirkpatrick is a writer and photographer who lives in Chestertown. His work has appeared in the Washington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the Washington College Alumni Magazine, and American Cowboy Magazine.  Two collections of his essays (“Musing Right Along” and “I’ll Be Right Back”) are available on Amazon. 

 

Letter to Editor: Why I am Voting for Jimmy Jaramillo for Talbot County Council

by 5 Comments

As a lifelong resident of Talbot County, I’m writing to share my thoughts and officially endorse Jimmy Jaramillo as one of the next Talbot County Council Members. I have known Jimmy for several years in both a personal and professional capacity. One of the first things his friends and family will tell you is that he has never forgotten where he came from – or who he has been fighting for when it comes to politics.

Jimmy has extensive experience in the political arena, including working closely with members of the Eastern Shore Delegation in Annapolis to address public safety issues and the ongoing opioid epidemic that Maryland faces. Additionally, Jimmy was elected Oxford Town Commissioner in September of 2020 and has been a voice of reason for the residents of Oxford at both town and county council meetings. Since taking office, Commissioner Jaramillo has worked to support economic sustainability and has participated in economic growth projects, within the county, as the Oxford representative on the Talbot Economic Development Commission. 

His energy and excitement are exactly what Talbot County needs. I am supporting Jimmy because of his love and passion for Talbot; his knowledge on issues important to Talbot residents, including ongoing economic projects; as well as his in-depth experience in developing sound budgets and actionable policies in the town of Oxford. These achievements are exemplary to Jimmy’s dedication to any task he takes on. 

Jimmy has his standards set high, aiming to ensure you have all your Rights and Freedoms as a Citizen; bring equality and balance back into our County; and to rehabilitate and preserve the Talbot County way of life, that makes us all adore this place we call home. He will not stop fighting for you, until these goals have been met.

  Jimmy Jaramillo’s leadership, his public administration skills, his deep roots in Talbot, and his vision for the county, are reliable indicators of why I am voting for him on July 19th. 

I ask that you place confidence in my endorsement and vote for Jimmy Jaramillo for Talbot County Council on July 19th! 

Kathi Dulin Duvall
Easton

 

Letter to Editor: What the Court Didn’t Get about Privacy with Roe v. Wade

by 8 Comments

Undergirding the recent decision overturning Roe v. Wade is the contention that the original basis for the ruling- the right of privacy- was a weak basis for the original decision because of its absence from the Constitution. Justice Alito and his fellow conservatives argue that because the Constitution does not reference privacy that it therefore does not exist as a right.
I am neither an attorney nor a constitutional scholar but it would appear from a layman’s perspective that privacy was such an inherent right that permeated several elements of the Constitution that it needed no specific mention. Second amendment court rulings as well as arguments advanced from its advocates are premised on a person’s need to protect their privacy in their own homes. Forbidding the government from requiring the housing of troops in their homes is a privacy matter. Not having to testify against oneself is a privacy matter. Not having to reveal one’s voting choices is a privacy matter. Privacy is the very essence of freedom of conscience an often overlooked aspect of the freedom of religion clause.
The absence of an explicit reference to the word privacy does not mean it wasn’t an intended right. The Constitution acknowledges that there are other rights not enumerated. Much of the initial resistance by James Madison and others to including a bill of rights was the concern that anything not specified would be construed as not a right. I would ask Justice Alito where are the words corporation, women, financial contributions to political campaigns, etc. to be found in the Constitution? The document was expected to protect individuals, even women who at the time were second class citizens, from governmental intrusion into their private world.
The prevailing majority on the Court wants the Constitution to be a flexible instrument when it comes to a conservative political agenda but rejects arguments that the founders sought an evolving governing structure that accommodated an unknowable future. Most were prescient enough to understand that the United States could not protect its citizens within the limitations of their 18th century world.

Vincent De Sanctis
Talbot County

Letter to Editor: It’s the Traffic

by 16 Comments

On Tuesday the drive through St.Michaels’ main street at 10:30 am was stopped for a time, then moved slowly; bumper to bumper. It was stop and go traffic all the way through town. Upon reaching the far end of St. Michaels, finally, I saw that the opposing traffic was sitting at Seymour and that cars were wasting gas all the way down the road to Lincoln. The culprits for the standstill? Sidewalk repair and replacement. An entire lane had been blocked off. After shopping at Grauls, of course the gruesome situation replayed itself in the other direction. Traffic is getting worse at the best of times, but the thought of enduring this sidewalk repair for who knows how long would test even the most patient of us.

After returning home with soup that once was ice cream, I asked, via email, the St. Michael Town Council and the Talbot County Council what could be done about this traffic. What could these vaunted members do to help their fellow constituents. I waited eagerly, for a response. No response; nothing, from any member of either council but for Pete Lesher, who suggested that the State Highway Administration could often be persuaded to schedule work that caused traffic disruption for off-peak times. Heartened by his response, I forwarded his missive to, again, the entire St. Michael Town Council and the Talbot County Council. And again, no response. Not a peep. Not a word. Not a smoke signal. Where are these all-caring members of our community. Is this not a problem that these council members could actually fix? Who was responsible for the sidewalk repair contract. Is it a town contract or a county contract. Could the members of these various entities not work together on this matter and fix it.

Did I not watch these peoples’ kumbaya videos talking about bringing their community together by working together. All manner of wonderful things would take place if a vote was received in their favor. I practically heard the Triumphal March from Aida while watching these videos and yet my first request has been met with no response. Absolutely no response whatsoever. Where are these elected officials who were going to make life better for their town folk. What has become of them. Are their goals so lofty, so high minded and exalted, that they have no time to help the mere mortals who live next door. Is there not one single member among these hallowed people who has the ability to step up and take charge? Is anyone willing to take charge or will finger pointing ensue?

Sadly, I am left to my friends, all my many friends, with whom I am only able to commiserate, about yet another promise not kept by a council member. I am only one voter. Granted, I have no standing, no voice, only one vote. I am a mere lone she-wolf crying in the wilderness while her gas money goes up in smoke; still wondering why there was no response from anyone who was willing and able and could actually do something to move this situation forward. I see only more disappointments and more bumper to bumper traffic ahead. Alas.

Linda Dus Hamilton
St. Michaels

Morality in Politics? By Al Sikes

by 11 Comments

Five years out of law school I went to work for the newly elected Missouri Attorney General. He was distinctive. He had two graduate degrees from Yale; one in law and the other in divinity. He baptized and married our youngest daughter, Marcia. His name: John C. Danforth or Jack to friends or St. Jack to his critics.

My appreciation for that beginning has been underscored by today’s political mess and I am talking about more than former President Donald Trump’s actions preceding and following the January 6th attack on Democracy. 

Words and phrases about the politics of kingdoms and tribes were first written on tablets; later printing technology and democracy widened the field. Now, writing a book about humble beginnings and self-catapulting success accompanies all national ambitions. 

My life, as told by the political aspirant, introduces the ambitious to careful editing and ultimately to a pattern of robotic answers when questioned. Spinmeisters abound. Never in a democracy has candor been in such short supply. Let’s see, “should I support a candidate who won’t really tell me what he is thinking?”

____________

Senator John McCain had been raised by an Admiral, told what to do by the Naval hierarchy at Annapolis and later by his captors in North Vietnam and still later by his political handlers. In part Senator McCain who was the Republican nominee for President in 2008 remained interesting because he didn’t take instruction. John McCain unplugged was a moral man because he meant what he said and was prepared to be judged by both his words and actions. He refused to hide.

And while I am on “unplugged” it is easy to imagine hundreds of intensely argued moments in the political life of Donald J. Trump. I am sure he must bristle at instruction, convinced he knows best. Yet, his originality in politics served him well, until it didn’t. 

One of my later in life political lessons occurred in the aftermath of Trump calling McCain a loser. I was certain his characterization was a fatal error. What I failed to understand was the lure of Trump Unplugged. 

Politicians and their enablers have lowered the standards; they are mostly scripted, although Hollywood doesn’t come calling. Years ago, I was on the set of the TV comedy Cheers. During a break in the filming Ted Danson quipped: “you people in Washington are just like us, we are all actors.” Well maybe, but the Washington version of acting is a façade to cover evasion and avoidance. Actors are a stories characters while most politicians are the real-life characters in what is often a bad script. 

Morality in politics? We were given a vivid standard by a Republican Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives, Rusty Bowers. He made a notation in his diary after Trump and Rudy Giuliani teamed up to declare there was fraud in the Arizona election that Trump lost and insisted that he should refuse to certify the results. Rusty Bowers wrote:

In a Democracy Bowers’ words and actions writ large are all the protection we have. We get the morality we deserve. Perhaps there was a time when standards of morality were set at the top. They certainly were when I worked for Attorney General Danforth. More often today they are set at the bottom—the foundation. Politicians are free to say what they want; we should pay attention to what they do. If we can’t get it right, corruption will be our legacy.

Al Sikes is the former Chair of the Federal Communications Commission under George H.W. Bush. Al writes on themes from his book, Culture Leads Leaders Follow published by Koehler Books. 

 

The Banality of Courage by Angela Rieck

by 10 Comments

I vowed not to watch the Congressional hearings about January 6th. I had watched the original insurrection and fallout for a full week and believed that I had heard enough.

But I relented.

I am glad I did.

One of last week’s hearings focused on the VP, Mike Pence, and the repercussions he was faced for doing his job. Listening to this harrowing tale, I was surprised how real the danger was. And I saw something that I did not expect.

Fear.

I remembered the fear on the faces of the Capitol police as they put their lives on the line to protect Congress and our Constitution. I saw fear on the faces of Congressmen and Congresswomen as they hid in the chamber and were ushered to safety.

I also remembered courage. The brave Capitol police protected our leaders with their lives. I saw videos of hand-to-hand combat. I saw the courage of a policeman who risked his life to lure the thugs away. (I still am not able to call these insurrectionists humans, I continue to pray for empathy and compassion, but as of yet, I cannot.)

I also realized that courage is not always about facing a life or death situation.

Tyler Schultz and Erika Chung were alarmed by what they saw at Theranos (a startup company that was trying to build medical testing devices). The executives of Theranos lied to investors and were willing to conduct inaccurate blood tests on patients. Chung and Schultz quit their jobs on moral grounds. It could have ended there. But they were concerned about patient safety. At great personal cost, they took another step. Chung notified the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). As required by law, CMS investigated Theranos and shut it down for 2 years deeming there was significant risk to patients. Schultz risked his career and his relationship with his famous grandfather, George Schultz, by whistleblowing to a Wall Street Journal reporter. The story in the Wall Street Journal was the beginning of the end for this fraudulent company. No longer able to con investors or get revenues from inaccurate medical tests, the company dissolved. Before its dissolution, Chung and Schultz spent almost a year sued, harassed, and spied on by private detectives, and yet remained resolute in their desire to expose the danger. They no doubt saved lives.

But all they really did was quit a job and notify others about the inner workings of the company. That’s all, they made a phone call or wrote an email.

In Mike Pence’s case, he was simply doing his job.

I carry no water for Pence. I have contempt for people who decide that their religion and piety must be forced upon everyone. Their religious beliefs compel them to abrogate women’s rights and the rights of anyone who deviates from their moral view.

Yet, Pence is courageous. Despite the extraordinary bullying that Pence endured and the threat to his safety, Pence did his job. His advisors were convinced that his life was in danger and remain fearful that without Congressional safeguards this could happen again if Trump runs for office.

Mike Pence showed courage in performing the simple ceremonial role of certifying the election. And that was all he did, in the face of withering persecution, he did his job.

Courage comes in many forms. It can be the courage that soldiers display on the battlefield or the Capitol police in protecting our Constitution.

Courage can be making an extra phone call, as Chung and Schultz did.

And sometimes courage is just as simple as doing your job.

Angela Rieck, a Caroline County native, received her PhD in Mathematical Psychology from the University of Maryland and worked as a scientist at Bell Labs, and other high-tech companies in New Jersey before retiring as a corporate executive. Angela and her dogs divide their time between St Michaels and Key West Florida. Her daughter lives and works in New York City.

The Right-Wing Has Rejected the Constitution by J.E. Dean

by 23 Comments

Democracy is an obstacle to an agenda based on fear.

For the last few years, I have worried that progressives were losing faith in the Constitution. My fear was that dysfunction in Washington would convince progressives that the system of government created by the Constitution no longer worked. I worried that a critical mass of progressives would abandon attempting to win elections and collaborating with moderates and conservatives to enact legislation and take to the streets.

Progressives may yet lose faith in the Constitution but, for now, remain a solid force within the Democratic party. Despite the slow wheels of government resulting from the Constitution’s checks and balances, progressives are not yet ready to storm the Capitol and hang Mitch McConnell.

The right wing, by contrast, has already left the Constitution behind. Led by Donald Trump and other “new Republicans,” extreme conservatives have sought to achieve their agendas through the courts rather than legislation, by executive action by-passing Congress, and, in January 2021, by violence and terrorism. 

The right wing has lost faith in democracy. Their actions reflect a belief that, if democracy works, they lose. Because most Americans support reasonable immigration policies, racial justice, and equity, fighting climate change, the right to abortion, and separation of church and state, a functioning democracy is an obstacle to the right-wing agenda. 

The January 6 assault on the Capitol may prove to be but the first battle of a war against the Constitution. Led by a President whose career in real estate development was built on circumventing laws and regulations, Trump’s followers sought to block Congress from certifying the 2020 election. The goal was to keep Trump in office despite his electoral loss. Supporters of the coup attempt, then and now, are fine with having a president who was not elected by the people.

The story of Trump is a troubling one, replete with a history of racism, petty and grand theft, and a propensity to lie in the face of overwhelming evidence. Trump, we are learning from the House Select Committee on January 6, knew that he had lost the election but championed half-baked legal analyses and false claims (most created by his followers) to claim the election was stolen.

It may seem obvious that Trump’s claims would disintegrate as courts rejected his false claims, but Trump’s strategy continues to be to double-down on lying while at the same time attempting to set the stage to overturn future elections that he, his followers, or his ideological successor might lose. 

Trump, by sheer force of his willingness to argue the ridiculous, has made himself indispensable to a movement that is sufficiently out of sync with mainstream America to never win national power. That is why his followers tolerate him despite evidence of tax fraud, sexual assault, and petty grift. 

Trump’s followers, both those who marched on the Capitol and those who continue to dismiss the seriousness of the insurrection attempt, are not so much supporting Trump as attempting to fight democracy. Trump should thus be seen as a means to an end rather than as the end itself. Right-wing extremists want a leader who will deliver policies that correspond to what they think they believe. This means preventing immigration, freezing racial equity, preventing racial reconciliation, and limiting government. By dismantling “the deep state,” the right-wing sees the possibility of their policy agenda winning notwithstanding the wishes of most Americans as expressed through their representatives and President sent to Washington.

If the theory that the right-wing has abandoned democracy is correct, we are in deep trouble. If the right-wing does not regain power by election, it could turn to more serious strategies, which could include bombings, kidnappings, and murders. Efforts could also be made to intimidate moderates and liberals from voting. In short, domestic terrorism. Far-fetched? Read up on what the Proud Boys were up to on January 6. 

The fear that right-wingers will turn to enhanced violence is not speculation. They have already done it. A plot to kidnap Michigan Governor Whitmore was foiled, but only after elaborate plans were developed. Pre-meditated attacks on gay-pride events have occurred. And, of course, racially motivated mass shootings have become common.

Does the right want a dictator?

The indifference with which right-wingers have responded to the deadly January 6 insurrection suggests the right is ready to embrace an autocrat, or benevolent dictator (benevolent to the right-wing at the expense of others). Trump was delivering what the right-wing thinks it wants–people of color “put back in their place,” LGBQT people put back in the closet, and a government that operates to perpetuate the status quo. If urban schools do not improve, for example, black progress does not occur. If income security and protection of civil rights are low priorities, the U.S. becomes a less attractive destination for immigrants. The list goes on.

Do not expect right-wingers to call for a dismantling of our system of government openly. Instead, listen to their chants of “USA! USA!” and then listen to what the crowd is cheering. In the case of Trump, it often calls for building border fences, incarcerating Hillary Clinton, or cracking down on crime. Extremists say they want to make America great again. Nothing could be further from the truth.

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, birds, and other subjects.